Your math doesn't make sense. There are about 50 million households in the US. 50 million *.650 = 32.5Mw. Not 200.
Now lets compare something else, total electrical consumption in the US in 2007 was 4,156,745,000 MWh[1]. There are 8766 hours in a year so that's 474,189Mw continuous. 32.5 is 0.006% of that.
So yes, it's a matter of scale - tiny scale. Turn all those off and no one would notice.
How is Amarok the undisputed champion when it reportedly it can't handle massive playlists? (I haven't tried it myself, but that's what I'm reading.)
I'm looking for a linux player that can handle thousands of songs, and ideally would allow me to rate each song as I hear it.
I tried Audacious, but it had so many bugs it was unusable (it kept loosing the playlist, or using 100% cpu, or deleting all the prefs). I tried juk but it's playlist was far too annoying to use - I want it to play all the songs, not stop at the end of an album just because I happen to be looking at the album playlist.
So, any suggestions? I'm using xmms right now, which works fine, but is discontinued (and doesn't have the rating feature, or an easy way to search for songs).
Anyway, I'd like to use amarok - it looks like it has all the features I want, except being able to handle thousands of songs.
3 billion vs. 30,000 - actually the function of the 2.99997billion remaining genes is not known, but it is believed to have some function. So we are not even close to having enough complexity to compare to a human.
For families perhaps, but have a look in the streets: what is the proportion of cars with only one person in, and family packed ones ?
But that has no impact on pollution - I'm not concerned with CO2 emissions, I am concerned about pollution emissions. And as far as I can tell buses are dirtier.
What you see or smell is not the whole story. The simplest example of that is CO: no taste, no colour,... but deadly.
Deadly yes - but also very very short lived. So as a toxin it's bad, but as a pollutant, not so much. Plus modern cars with oxygen sensors don't release much, if any.
Re: CO2 levels - you are talking worldwide, I meant in the local area, say heavily polluted LA. CO2 is not the pollutant. Sure CO2 can kill, but that doesn't happen in the regular air today. Today the levels of CO2 in the air have no affect on people. This is an entirely separate issue from climate changes. As a pollutant CO2 is simply unimportant.
I don't like that tactic. It encourages people to make less and less reasonable demands, not to try to behave and discuss like adults. That's a bit like the pre-emptive strike tactic.
And yet it works, and so does a pre-emptive strike. But it more useful for making a point (which it certainly did BTW). Later in the conversation it's not so good, and, as I hope you can see, I scale it down - I even point it out.
BTW in case you wonder why I care so little about CO2. It's because it's trivial to fix, if only we wanted to. You need only two things: 1: Repeal the ban on nuclear fuel reprocessing. 2: Have the department of energy release standardized nuclear power plant plans. So someone wanting to make one only has to show they met the design, and it's automatically approved (as opposed to the case by case decision occurring now). Economies of scale (build a large number of identical reactors), will reduce the price enough so that it can compete again (that's the only reason it's not used: it's more expensive than coal). Once it's competitive people will build a bunch of them.
Next: with electricity so cheap, electric cars will be very popular, and so will heating with electricity, and voila CO2 problems solved. And no laws and regulations needed - just market forces.
It's pointless to say "we need nuclear power to reduce CO2" - even if it's true. People will use it for only one reason: it's cheaper. Right now it's not - hence my plan (OK, idea).
My opinion is that smokers in open air are too small a health problem to impose such a harsh restriction.
I know. But I still hate breathing it.
Are you saying a single individual in his car pollutes less than bus passengers per capita ? where are the numbers, I'd like to see them...
This is about trains rather than buses: Rail industry admits that it's often greener for families to travel by car. If you take into account that buses are diesel and very polluting, plus newer cats on cars that are nearly pollution free, I think it's right. But I don't have numbers for buses, all I know is watching the smoke cloud coming from the bus every time it accelerates. I don't see (or smell) that in cars. Also cars drive at a more consistent speed - most of the waste is in stopping and starting, and buses do that a lot.
CO2 has health impacts, especially when it's kept down by smog-like conditions. Ask an asthmatic how he feels about it...
I'm quite sure that is not caused by CO2, but rather by ozone, and particulate pollution. CO2 levels vary very very little.
It's nice to be consistent, but be careful about extremes like "0% or nothing". Usually the best solution lies in between the extremes, rarely at them.
I'm taking the extreme position just to make a point, not because I think it will really happen that way. A negotiation tactic of sorts: you go extreme one way, I go the other, and we end up in the middle - which is where I wanted to be in the first place.
It's not true what you say about cars. If you use sulfur-free fuel there is technology to make the exhaust cleaner then what went in. The exhaust is just CO2 and H2O, no NOx's, no soot or unburnt fuel.
And you quite missed the point with cholesterol and sport.
I am not trying to make anyone else healthy, it's none of my business. I just don't want them to send smoke to me. I couldn't care less if they smoke - just keep the smoke out of the air I breathe. And that includes when I walk on the sidewalk.
(BTW just to clarify: my almost 0% number was not amount of pollution, it was amount of health effects produced.)
Also, why do you say 'individual' cars? Buses are worse as far as pollution goes.
And just so you know that I am consistent, I would also like to ban coal power plants (due to mercury and radioactivity released), and replace them with nuclear.
I once had ideas of an air pollution tax: every item sold, from hairspray and bleach to paint and kerosene, and including electricity (based on the individual power plant - the tax is collected at point of production, not consumption, but it would be passed on), would carry a very visible tax. The amount of the tax would be calculated based on expected health care costs of the estimated emissions of the product. The money collected would go to all residents, citizen or not, divided equally with no regard to income.
So if everyone used about the same amount of polluting products the net effect would be 0. But in actuality the worst emitters would pay more, and market forces would quickly remove the worst pollutants from the market.
I would NOT include CO2 in the calculations. Only emissions with health effects.
I completely agree that smog making cars are no good.
But you have to start somewhere, just because you can't fix everything doesn't mean you should fix nothing.
There is technology that is making gas using cars very clean, not so for smoking. Which is why smoking should be banned, and cars get emission regulations.
If you found a way to smoke without letting any of it into the air I would have no problem with it at all.
CO2 does not harm people. Global warming and stuff fine, but the CO2 itself does not cause health issues.
As for the smoking: as a smoker you can not understand just how disgusting the smoke is to other people, add in the health affects on top of that, and you'll understand why people hate it so much.
You're quite right. That's why there are emission requirements. And why I think diesel trucks especially should be required to install cats - even the old ones. (And the old cars too BTW.)
Just because we didn't complete the job of removing pollution doesn't mean we can't start. At least the cars and stuff are outside where it's much more diluted.
If I had my way I would require smokers to only smoke in a filtered room, not even outdoors. (Maybe some sort of reverse gas mask for outdoor use?)
I know most people will not go for that, and that's fine. It's necessary to have opinions at both extremes - this way you get a reasonable compromise.
Seriously - how exactly is secondhand smoke the slightest bit different from firsthand? It's the exact same smoke just a bit more diluted. Diluted means lower risk sure, but not zero.
Rigght, it has no affects. I don't care what you believe, but inhaling particles of carbon in the lungs is not good for anyone.
It doesn't matter is the stats say 0.01% of people are harmed - those people did not have a choice, so any number over 0 is unacceptable. (And I'm quite sure the number is far higher.)
And please don't repeat nonsense about going someplace else, before the indoor bans there WAS no other place.
Obviously global warming is happening, it is getting hotter.
Maybe you have a different meaning of obvious, it is far from clear that the climate is getting hotter (the graph of temperature is so noisy, it's very hard to tell), much less that humans are causing it.
It might, and we might. But it's far from a settled issue. Which is why you need a law telling people to teach it. If it was a settled issue you wouldn't need a law about it.
You can use it as a basic rule: if you need a law telling people to believe something, that thing is probably not true. It the same with codes of ethics - if you need a code of ethics, your profession is not ethical. (Real estate agents, car mechanics, lawyers.)
Unlike your eye, which perceives the frequency of the reflected light
Actually that is not true. Your eye does not perceive the the frequency of light, but rather it has 3 frequencies it sees, with dropoffs in signal for frequencies not centered on it.
Which is exactly the same way cameras work. In fact that's why cameras work (choosing 3 colors for RGB was not an accident - it's modeled after the way the eye sees color).
The only difference is the center frequencies of the eye vs the camera - they are not the same (although they are close). Plus the color range for the eye is larger (especially in blue).
The color filter on a camera is not a notch filter, it has a curve exactly like the eye does, and there is no reason it should not handle discrete rather than continuous frequencies. If it's necessary to change the color filters on a camera to match the eye, instead of RGB, then so be it, and do color space conversions to RGB.
Somehow you haven't quite convinced me that inhaling four milligrams directly into my lungs isn't going to be a bad, if not a deadly, thing for me.
It doesn't actually do that you know. Very little of it evaporates, it mostly stays were it fell. I suppose if you broke a hot one that could happen.
But you have to remember it's elemental mercury - it's really not that toxic! It goes in and out of your system. It's metyl mercury that is toxic, and you need bacteria to make that.
The OSHA levels are for continuous exposure. The 4mg is going to do nothing at all to you. On the other hand the releases from coal power plants will and do kill people.
FACT: Fluorescent bulbs make photographers want to commit suicide because the colors in photographs are utterly ruined.
Then get a better camera, if it looks fine to the eye, then it should be fine to the camera, if it's not, then fix the camera.
FACT: Fluorescent bulbs lead to depression because it does not cause the same biochemical reactions as incandescent light.
Fiction.
FACT: Fluorescent bulbs lead to poorer health in humans because of a lack of vitamin D production. In addition to hurting humans, this also makes them wholly unacceptable for use in animal cages because many animals (particularly reptiles) really need this....
Fiction. Vitamin D is made by UV light which does not pass through glass. Incandescent bulbs make very little, if any. Fluorescent makes plenty, but very little escapes. So if anything the opposite of what you wrote is true.
FACT: Fluorescent bulbs contain toxic chemicals that are far worse for the environment than all the belching coal smoke from power generation.
Your other lines could be argued both ways, but this is pure fiction. Fluorescent bulbs have elemental mercury, that's it. Coal smoke has mercury, and radiation, and sulfur and lots of other really bad stuff. And to make it worse coal smoke is in the air, but unless you break a bulb, the mercury gets buried underground in a landfill. Sure people break bulbs sometimes, but not every bulb.
BTW did you know that coal power plants release more radiation then all nuclear power plants combined?
Mutt even complies with some obscure RFC rule for email where you can resend a mail. I don't know of too many mailers that can do that. Its ESC-e if you care.
Pine can do that too - command 'b' for bounce.
Also, mutt can use vim as your editor, which I use all the time anyway, so it keeps my life more consistant than learning different editors.
I'm not sure if we are comparing pine here, but it too can use an external editor.
Pine is actually quite a powerful email client - are there any lists of feature comparisons to mutt? I've been thinking of mutt.
I'm a Mutt user. My biggest complaint is that I can't save outgoing emails to more than one folder based on the list of recipients. I've known others on the USENET newsgroup whine about this, as well. Is this a feature Pine/Alpine has?
You can do a different sent-mail folder based on a rule. I don't think you can save the same message more then once in different folders if that's what you are asking.
I'm thinking more along the lines of a OLED panel mounted directly behind the e-ink display so it shines through the e-ink.
That's not possible to do with e-ink.
e-ink has white particles suspended in (basically) black ink. When they are at the top, they reflect light, making it white. When they move to the bottom of the display you see the black ink and it looks black.
So you can't shine anything through it (a: you can't shine through the white particles, no matter if they are at the top or the bottom, and b: you can't shine though the black ink), it would have to be top lit.
It's possible if some dials have more then 10 numbers. Although the number 11111 only has two factors: 41 and 271, so unless you have two dials I'm not sure how it would work.
Cleaning completely is not possible. There may be one or three people on the entire Slashdot, who know, what can and can not be done with this waste... The rest are just venting.
Perhaps you can tell me why can't they bury the sludge in the ground? I don't understand why they specifically need to put it in the water.
Unlike MythTV, atscap doesn't heat up your CPU compressing the video into some lower-quality format. If it's HD, most people will want the original picture quality, not some weirdware NippleVideo compressed low-quality version.
Um, you know you don't have to recompress HDTV streams in MythTV? And what's the point of advertising capture with a 100Mhz CPU (which MythTV can do just fine, BTW) if you can't play it anyway?
Oh, and you don't have to play them in MythTV either, you can play them using mplayer.
You sound like you're ranting against MythTV, but for no good reason. If there something about the MythTV backend that bothers you?
Nope, both you and the couple of people above you are wrong.
The orbit of the moon does depend on the mass of the moon.
The only time it's ignored is if the mass is negligible compared to the other body. So yah, the equations are right - but only in some cases (what do they say about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing?)
That may be the case here, I don't know. I didn't check for estimates of the mass of the moon of Eris.
But if the moon is large, then yes, you do have to take it's mass into account.
But it's not so hard to do so - just assume both the moon and the planet have equal densities, and you can solve it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your math doesn't make sense. There are about 50 million households in the US. 50 million * .650 = 32.5Mw. Not 200.
Now lets compare something else, total electrical consumption in the US in 2007 was 4,156,745,000 MWh[1]. There are 8766 hours in a year so that's 474,189Mw continuous. 32.5 is 0.006% of that.
So yes, it's a matter of scale - tiny scale. Turn all those off and no one would notice.
[1] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
How is Amarok the undisputed champion when it reportedly it can't handle massive playlists? (I haven't tried it myself, but that's what I'm reading.)
I'm looking for a linux player that can handle thousands of songs, and ideally would allow me to rate each song as I hear it.
I tried Audacious, but it had so many bugs it was unusable (it kept loosing the playlist, or using 100% cpu, or deleting all the prefs). I tried juk but it's playlist was far too annoying to use - I want it to play all the songs, not stop at the end of an album just because I happen to be looking at the album playlist.
So, any suggestions? I'm using xmms right now, which works fine, but is discontinued (and doesn't have the rating feature, or an easy way to search for songs).
Anyway, I'd like to use amarok - it looks like it has all the features I want, except being able to handle thousands of songs.
It's a shill only if they have a relationship with the seller. But they didn't in this case.
3 billion vs. 30,000 - actually the function of the 2.99997billion remaining genes is not known, but it is believed to have some function. So we are not even close to having enough complexity to compare to a human.
Re: CO2 levels - you are talking worldwide, I meant in the local area, say heavily polluted LA. CO2 is not the pollutant. Sure CO2 can kill, but that doesn't happen in the regular air today. Today the levels of CO2 in the air have no affect on people. This is an entirely separate issue from climate changes. As a pollutant CO2 is simply unimportant. And yet it works, and so does a pre-emptive strike. But it more useful for making a point (which it certainly did BTW). Later in the conversation it's not so good, and, as I hope you can see, I scale it down - I even point it out.
BTW in case you wonder why I care so little about CO2. It's because it's trivial to fix, if only we wanted to. You need only two things: 1: Repeal the ban on nuclear fuel reprocessing. 2: Have the department of energy release standardized nuclear power plant plans. So someone wanting to make one only has to show they met the design, and it's automatically approved (as opposed to the case by case decision occurring now). Economies of scale (build a large number of identical reactors), will reduce the price enough so that it can compete again (that's the only reason it's not used: it's more expensive than coal). Once it's competitive people will build a bunch of them.
Next: with electricity so cheap, electric cars will be very popular, and so will heating with electricity, and voila CO2 problems solved. And no laws and regulations needed - just market forces.
It's pointless to say "we need nuclear power to reduce CO2" - even if it's true. People will use it for only one reason: it's cheaper. Right now it's not - hence my plan (OK, idea).
It's not true what you say about cars. If you use sulfur-free fuel there is technology to make the exhaust cleaner then what went in. The exhaust is just CO2 and H2O, no NOx's, no soot or unburnt fuel.
And you quite missed the point with cholesterol and sport.
I am not trying to make anyone else healthy, it's none of my business. I just don't want them to send smoke to me. I couldn't care less if they smoke - just keep the smoke out of the air I breathe. And that includes when I walk on the sidewalk.
(BTW just to clarify: my almost 0% number was not amount of pollution, it was amount of health effects produced.)
Also, why do you say 'individual' cars? Buses are worse as far as pollution goes.
And just so you know that I am consistent, I would also like to ban coal power plants (due to mercury and radioactivity released), and replace them with nuclear.
I once had ideas of an air pollution tax: every item sold, from hairspray and bleach to paint and kerosene, and including electricity (based on the individual power plant - the tax is collected at point of production, not consumption, but it would be passed on), would carry a very visible tax. The amount of the tax would be calculated based on expected health care costs of the estimated emissions of the product. The money collected would go to all residents, citizen or not, divided equally with no regard to income.
So if everyone used about the same amount of polluting products the net effect would be 0. But in actuality the worst emitters would pay more, and market forces would quickly remove the worst pollutants from the market.
I would NOT include CO2 in the calculations. Only emissions with health effects.
I completely agree that smog making cars are no good.
But you have to start somewhere, just because you can't fix everything doesn't mean you should fix nothing.
There is technology that is making gas using cars very clean, not so for smoking. Which is why smoking should be banned, and cars get emission regulations.
If you found a way to smoke without letting any of it into the air I would have no problem with it at all.
CO2 does not harm people. Global warming and stuff fine, but the CO2 itself does not cause health issues.
As for the smoking: as a smoker you can not understand just how disgusting the smoke is to other people, add in the health affects on top of that, and you'll understand why people hate it so much.
You're quite right. That's why there are emission requirements. And why I think diesel trucks especially should be required to install cats - even the old ones. (And the old cars too BTW.)
Just because we didn't complete the job of removing pollution doesn't mean we can't start. At least the cars and stuff are outside where it's much more diluted.
If I had my way I would require smokers to only smoke in a filtered room, not even outdoors. (Maybe some sort of reverse gas mask for outdoor use?)
I know most people will not go for that, and that's fine. It's necessary to have opinions at both extremes - this way you get a reasonable compromise.
Seriously - how exactly is secondhand smoke the slightest bit different from firsthand? It's the exact same smoke just a bit more diluted. Diluted means lower risk sure, but not zero.
Rigght, it has no affects. I don't care what you believe, but inhaling particles of carbon in the lungs is not good for anyone.
It doesn't matter is the stats say 0.01% of people are harmed - those people did not have a choice, so any number over 0 is unacceptable. (And I'm quite sure the number is far higher.)
And please don't repeat nonsense about going someplace else, before the indoor bans there WAS no other place.
Maybe you have a different meaning of obvious, it is far from clear that the climate is getting hotter (the graph of temperature is so noisy, it's very hard to tell), much less that humans are causing it.
It might, and we might. But it's far from a settled issue. Which is why you need a law telling people to teach it. If it was a settled issue you wouldn't need a law about it.
You can use it as a basic rule: if you need a law telling people to believe something, that thing is probably not true. It the same with codes of ethics - if you need a code of ethics, your profession is not ethical. (Real estate agents, car mechanics, lawyers.)
It's not from nothing, the matter would be created from the energy of the laser. Lookup pair production.
And I wouldn't worry about blackholes, some cosmic rays have a lot more energy then this, and they haven't caused any problems yet.
The article says proton, not atom, so hydrogen I guess.
Actually that is not true. Your eye does not perceive the the frequency of light, but rather it has 3 frequencies it sees, with dropoffs in signal for frequencies not centered on it.
Which is exactly the same way cameras work. In fact that's why cameras work (choosing 3 colors for RGB was not an accident - it's modeled after the way the eye sees color).
The only difference is the center frequencies of the eye vs the camera - they are not the same (although they are close). Plus the color range for the eye is larger (especially in blue).
The color filter on a camera is not a notch filter, it has a curve exactly like the eye does, and there is no reason it should not handle discrete rather than continuous frequencies. If it's necessary to change the color filters on a camera to match the eye, instead of RGB, then so be it, and do color space conversions to RGB.
It doesn't actually do that you know. Very little of it evaporates, it mostly stays were it fell. I suppose if you broke a hot one that could happen.
But you have to remember it's elemental mercury - it's really not that toxic! It goes in and out of your system. It's metyl mercury that is toxic, and you need bacteria to make that.
The OSHA levels are for continuous exposure. The 4mg is going to do nothing at all to you. On the other hand the releases from coal power plants will and do kill people.
Then get a better camera, if it looks fine to the eye, then it should be fine to the camera, if it's not, then fix the camera.
Fiction.
Fiction. Vitamin D is made by UV light which does not pass through glass. Incandescent bulbs make very little, if any. Fluorescent makes plenty, but very little escapes. So if anything the opposite of what you wrote is true.
Your other lines could be argued both ways, but this is pure fiction. Fluorescent bulbs have elemental mercury, that's it. Coal smoke has mercury, and radiation, and sulfur and lots of other really bad stuff. And to make it worse coal smoke is in the air, but unless you break a bulb, the mercury gets buried underground in a landfill. Sure people break bulbs sometimes, but not every bulb.
BTW did you know that coal power plants release more radiation then all nuclear power plants combined?
Pine can do that too - command 'b' for bounce.
I'm not sure if we are comparing pine here, but it too can use an external editor.
Pine is actually quite a powerful email client - are there any lists of feature comparisons to mutt? I've been thinking of mutt.
You can do a different sent-mail folder based on a rule. I don't think you can save the same message more then once in different folders if that's what you are asking.
That's not possible to do with e-ink.
e-ink has white particles suspended in (basically) black ink. When they are at the top, they reflect light, making it white. When they move to the bottom of the display you see the black ink and it looks black.
So you can't shine anything through it (a: you can't shine through the white particles, no matter if they are at the top or the bottom, and b: you can't shine though the black ink), it would have to be top lit.
It's possible if some dials have more then 10 numbers. Although the number 11111 only has two factors: 41 and 271, so unless you have two dials I'm not sure how it would work.
Um, you know you don't have to recompress HDTV streams in MythTV? And what's the point of advertising capture with a 100Mhz CPU (which MythTV can do just fine, BTW) if you can't play it anyway?
Oh, and you don't have to play them in MythTV either, you can play them using mplayer.
You sound like you're ranting against MythTV, but for no good reason. If there something about the MythTV backend that bothers you?
Nope, both you and the couple of people above you are wrong.
The orbit of the moon does depend on the mass of the moon.
The only time it's ignored is if the mass is negligible compared to the other body. So yah, the equations are right - but only in some cases (what do they say about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing?)
That may be the case here, I don't know. I didn't check for estimates of the mass of the moon of Eris.
But if the moon is large, then yes, you do have to take it's mass into account.
But it's not so hard to do so - just assume both the moon and the planet have equal densities, and you can solve it.